And this image which seems to show a 2 for race of father (Hawaiian) and a 3 for race of mother (part-Hawaiian).
Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
A 23 minute excerpt of the Zullo hr interview with Gillar. Listen around the 17:18 minute mark about the codes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JyGSuWIrA8#t=917
And
A flashback of a local Phoenix tv news interview of Zullo. Zullo goes over the codes local HI and Federal.
I spoke directly with both Corsi and Zullo before I published. One thing that did not seem to be well understood or relayed was that the FED codes may actually be different than the local/state. In fact, the fed code manual at no time instructs the puncher to use any pre-written codes. That FEDERAL code book therefore has ZERO to do with what those codes mean. The feds didn’t write them nor reference them. At all. They read from the certificate parents race fields to determine how to code the infant.
That does not mean that the STATE/Local coder didn’t use the same codes as the Feds, (in ‘61 “9” would be “other non-white”) - but we still do not have proof of that as far as I know.
The CDC person he refers to is the same one that sent me the manual, she is a upper management level person. Zullo had not known prior to that presentation that Corsi got so much of “his” stuff straight from ... BLOGGERS! And had not confirmed all of it. The image from the 1968 Federal manual that was used in the presentation was a image from the blog The Daily Pen for example, but Corsi had the script written to claim it was a ‘61.
The issue to me is still going to only be important or relevant IF they have found a genuine HI Dept of Health coding instruction manual. I do know that the States had their own. The indication is that they were not all identical to the Fed codes. That is why the Feds had to have a manual and detailed instruction.
FWIW, Zullo told me that he had spent about 5 hours on the phone with the woman at the CDC. He told me that shortly after the event, and some other info I won’t relate. Was he being dramatic? Perhaps.
If they don’t have a HI manual nothing about the codes really matters.
You don’t have a right to ask me questions until you answer mine first ... since mine was asked first and then again, and again and again. While I have repeatedly answered your question with a succinct yes or no. So I’ll ask you again
1. Is Obama President of the United States?
2. How is a President constitutionally removed from office?
I’ll give you the answers yet you refuse to answer.
Live with the Constitution you have, not the Constitution you want.
Hello Ladysforest, I was wondering what “accurate” information about Obama could be received from pencil markings on a Computor generated, forged birth certificate?.. seems to me the whole thing is worthless..unless they plan to match up the pencil markings with another BC—the pencil markings probally relate to another person.. thx
“Would such a forgery be an impeacheable offence?”
__
I believe it would. Apparently, the members of the House Judiciary Committee have not been persuaded that there is sufficient evidence of a forgery to warrant hearings on the subject.
I don’t believe miss lee pencil marked those boxes on Obama’s BC., especially a computor generated forged one- I believe the whole thing is pointless to investigate.. I mean it’s forged, but nothing can be believed about it, or retrieve valid information about it..—
Yes, it would be an impeachable. Whenever you see the word impeach, think ‘indictment of the President’. In fact the House + Senate can impeach and convict a President for just looking at them sideways — if they had the votes and the political will.
Your FYI part is spot on and shows a good understanding of what the situation is. Instead of taking all this time ranting and raving and diminishing the luster of the Conservative party, they should have worked on and lobbied for new law governing a definitive method of determining eligibility.
But that doesn’t help put money in the coffers of the various ‘cottage industries of controversy and conspiracy.
Baker vs. Carr is the definitive precedent regarding SCOTUS and the ‘Political Question Doctrine’ and specifically enumerates the reasons the SCOTUS will not take up a political case such as eligibility.
Quoting from a well known source and verifiable through LexisNexis.
Cases that are political in nature are marked by: [I see 4 of 6 that fit the birther issue quite nicely]
“Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;” as an example of this, Brennan cited issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, arguing that cases involving such matters would be “political questions”
“A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;”
“The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;”
“The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;”
“An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;”
“The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
I don’t have a right to ask you questions?
Again I ask you to forget Obama. I was discussing eligibility way back in post 29, “Eligibility is not a political question, it is a legal question. Legal questions are decided judicially.” I stand by this assertion.
The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Impeachments are tried by the Senate. Judgement shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit. The person accused shall be liable to indictment and punishment according to law.
The Executive is liable to impeachment.
A case is brought before the Supreme Court and a determination of ineligibility is made. The Executive is removed.
That is fact.
yikes, if they are talking about THE code 9 they mean business! /s
My word! Something I never expected to see in a birther topic after all this time: a new analysis, and one that makes a lot of sense!
“Apparently, the members of the House Judiciary Committee have not been persuaded that there is sufficient evidence of a forgery to warrant hearings on the subject.”
This is the difference between a conservative and a non-conservative. A conservative looks at the culture of corruption that pervades the DC Permanent Political Class and acknowledges that they have let us down across the board, and will continue to do so until they are voted out of office. A non-conservative looks at the action of the Ruling Elite and deems it honorable, right and just. Moreover, they cite these actions as proof that the Permanent Political Class acts not only with integrity, but with the best interests of the country and their constituents first and foremost in their decision making process.
Pathetic.
The most recent case was Lindsay v. Bowen just decided in California. The Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate a candidate but can remove an ineligible candidate is it is obvious or self admitted.
“Nor is this a case where a candidate’s qualifications were
disputed. Everyone agrees that Lindsay couldn’t hold the
office for which she was trying to run. Lindsay therefore
could never have been a legitimate contender for the
presidency, and there’s no doubt that “a State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies.” See Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972). Holding that Secretary Bowen couldn’t exclude Lindsay from the ballot, despite her admission that she was underage, would mean that anyone, regardless of age, citizenship or any other constitutional ineligibility would be entitled to clutter and confuse our electoral ballot. Nothing in the First Amendment compels such an absurd result.”
[skip]
“While claiming that similarly situated candidates were treated differently than she was, Lindsay can’t identify a single person who appeared on the California ballot despite admitting that he wasn’t qualified.”
“Lindsay points to 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who some considered to be ineligible to hold office
because he was born outside the United States. But, at worst, McCain’s eligibility was disputed. He never conceded that he was ineligible to serve, and it was generally assumed that he could. The Secretary does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by excluding from the ballot candidates who are indisputably ineligible to serve, while listing those with a colorable claim of eligibility. Because those two groups stand on a different footing, the Secretary is entitled to exclude the former while including the latter.”
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/05/06/13-15085.pdf
There is also this for the 20th Amendment folks:
“But, even if it does, nothing in the Twentieth Amendment states or implies that Congress has the exclusive authority to pass on the eligibility of candidates for president. The amendment merely grants Congress the authority to determine how to proceed if neither the president elect nor the vice president elect is qualified to hold office, a problem for which there was previously no express solution.”
And this image which seems to show a 2 for race of father (Hawaiian) and a 3 for race of mother (part-Hawaiian).
Mine isn’t new. It’s been out since shortly after the presser where Zullo discussed the codes.
Bottom line for me has always been the truth, nothing else.
Do I think the codes matter at all? Only IF they have secured a genuine copy of the LOCAL/STATE codes. I have confirmed that states had their own, but not which state codes would have matched the federal codes back in 61. Of the 30+ states that I contacted, only a handful could respond with authority. They all said that they doubted any of the old state manuals remained on file, or in archives anywhere. They were discarded once revisions took place.
I have always felt that the revisions to the August ‘61 Fed VSIM would not likely have been to the race codes, but either to geo info or to add more specific wording. WHY change race coding info (the actual codes) mid year? That would result in a huge amount of down stream mess.. But Zullo and Co. got all hung up on that issue.
That looks like a 7 to me. Anyway, like I said - a local/state HI code book may have coded differently than the FED book.
Couldn’t tell ya.
A forgery is a full on forged instrument or it can be a manipulated instrument.
I prefer the manipulated type myself.
Did Zullo indicate to you when he talked to the woman from the CDC was it before or after the presentation?
Right before. He wanted to confirm the data, and he and she went back and forth. My sense was she got fed up with him and said what ever she felt would get him off of her back.
Really though, if he has the proof of that he can’t be held accountable for her doing that.
With me she was rude and abrupt. Insisted the manual she was sending me was “the one I wanted”.
It took me a day and a half to get anyone with a sliver of a brain to work with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.